Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

07 Mar 2017


AWK, mattg, Rachael, KimD, David-MacDonald, MaryJoMueller, mhakkinen, JimA, Lauriat, marcjohlic, Kathy, Wilco, MoeKraft, MichaelC, Jim_S, Greg_Lowney, MikeGower, kirkwood, Lisa_Seeman, jon_avila
Srini, Alastair, Mike_Elledge, Mike_Pluke, EA_Draffan, John_Foliot


<AWK> Scribe: Moe_Kraft

AWK: Lisa Seeman will scribe next week. We need volunteers for March 21 & March 28

Wayne: I will do March 28

Rachael: I will take March 21

<AWK> Scribe page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<kirkwood> +kirkwood


AWK: Regular item added to introduce new participants
... Why you are joining and also good to know your voice.
... Anyone new please take a moment to introduce yourself.

Adam: Been attending 4 weeks. Work with Kim Dirks at Reuters and we are building an accessibility team. Working with teams to build ARIA support in their apps.

AWK: Thank you. Welcome. Anyone else? Newish?
... Make sure to use present+ name to announce your attendance so you are recorded appropriately

Joining AGWG – WCAG members need to rejoin. Don’t delay!

AWK: Need to rejoin even if you were part of WCAG WG

MichaelC: Sign up by March 16. Will lose ability to enter surveys

AWK: AC reps must sign form

ACTF FPWD (10 min)

Maryjom: I work for IBM. I have been involved in various WG and task forces and currently cochair of WCAG Accessibility Conformance Test Task Force
... developing a framework and repository of test rules for testing WCAG and looking for conformance and consistency between tools
... framework will be normative. One of the deliverables on AGWG charter.

<maryjom> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-framework.html

maryjom: This is our editor's draft. All content in place just some clean up editing to take place before it will be FPWD
... Task force has a final review on our survey this week. Need last minute edits.
... Expect comments to be editorial. With that in mind expect it will be ready for survey to AGWG by end of week ~Thursday
... Will be requesting this to be FPWD on survey. It's a short document. Not sure what the timing is for AGWG but would like to have it go out to survey this week
... with a goal to publish FPWD by 3/20

AWK: We haven't published FPWD in awhile so now we have 2 in 1 month. ACT TF will provide a survey and next week we will ask questions.
... Target 2 weeks of internal review and then we will have a call for consensus to put out as FPWD.

maryjom: Thank you.

AG WG Climate (10 min)

AWK: We published FPWD last week which is a great morale booster for AGWG.
... We haven't published an update to WCAG in many years. This is great work! Thanks everyone for your work on that.
... I heard from people inside and outside working group that there are concerns for climate and morale in working group. Concerned because we have a lot of work ahead for us.
... We all recognize that this is going to be meaningful work. From chairs and Michael and I is that we have to make sure that we follow the WG behavior guidelines
... Everyone is here for the same reason to produce guidelines for accessibility. I think this gets lost sometime. Need to remind ourselves that we are here for the same reason
... Everyone is interested in accessibility and moving it forward. We need to work together.
... As we go through reviewing SC and comments make sure we are deliberately documenting what pieces we have agreement on and what pieces need work.
... Need to give all SC proposals a fair shake in order to have a collection of SC that will cut across all task forces. To have a chance that all of our work is being represented.

<MichaelC> Positive Work Environment policy and procedures

MichaelC: We have a Code of Ethics that we follow
... This resource will help you determine how to resolve an issue. You can reach out to me or other ombudsman for help.

AWK: Come to Josh, Michael or Andrew is you have an issue
... Want to get as much done as we can. If any concerns or feel like you are not being listened to, it will be difficult to resolve issues. We need to figure out how to make this work.
... Any questions or concerns?
... I hope we can take the opportunity to use this brief pause. Ok that pause was last week. We can move forward together and realize we are trying to get something good done.
... If anyone has issues talking with them directly can help and we are here to help.

zakim: take up next

Process post- FPWD (Github, Checkboxes, etc) (10 min)

AWK: There are a number of questions about FPWD process. Some pull requests were not accepted. Some were. Pull requests accepted and issues have been closed for items accepted.
... There was a strong desire for issues to stay open where comments could be provided. The issues are marked as opened. In addition, the original description has been updated.
... I think WG agrees is that we need to keep original issue text at the top. If we change SC we need to update the current description with that version. If you opened the issue and SC manager you should update.
... If you cannot update the issue text, let Andrew know.
... Agree it's a good idea to keep the issue open and to keep the issue description current. Does this sound like a good way to work?

DavidM: What will happen with pull request?

AWK: Pull request is accepted or modified. This is a convenient way to get changes in Editor's draft.

DavidM: So should we do public comments on issues instead of PR.

AWK: Need clarity of where the comment should go. Keeping the issue open with a thread of comments makes sense.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say editing issues loses history and to say not everyone can edit issues unless we change permissions and to say want to deemphasize PR

AWK: Issue is where the current text is. Current PR should reflect this.

MichaelC: Issue is that we lose history of the issue because issues don't track changes. Only limited number of people have ability to change issue. For this to really work,
... ...we will need to update the permissions of the repository.
... I am personally not in favor of editing the issues.
... Tricky to keep PR and issues in sync. Would rather do changes in branches.
... Some people might find this difficult. I would rather deemphasize the PR procedure. They don't lighten my editorial load. I would rather just make the change.
... Don't think PR should be the mainstream path.

AWK: I have had more success with pull requests this time around. Part of the reason people are concerned is because some TF are using wiki and then bring work to GitHub.
... Some folks find GitHub very difficult to work with and others find it easier. Need a good balance to work with.
... Any questions or concerns with what works well or not

Stephen: If you read through issue and PR sometimes difficult to understand what was changed. I understand keeping in 1 issue is desirable because can lose track of important comment.

Rachael: Not having PR in the mix is a good step. Tracking issue and email is already difficult. Stepping away from comments on PR is a good thing.

<steverep> GitHub does not allow closing comments

Kathy: If we are not going to use PR, can we block people from commenting on these? Having in just 1 place will be easier to track.

MichaelC: Not sure if we can block but we can definitely request that people not comment on them.
... We can establish a policy that PR will automatically be close.d

Kathy: I definitely missed comments.

MichaelC: Agreed.

<kirkwood> Agree

AWK: If we don't use PR this would be the sure fire way to avoid comments on the pull request.

Wayne: Everyone is having difficulty with the system. For PwD they are even worse.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say tool a11y is being looked at by management

Wayne: We're really having a hard time.

<Lisa_Seeman> sorry I am late. i am confuced about the time and thought I missed it!!!

MichaelC: The W3C management is looking at the accessibility issues of our tools.

Wayne: Jim Allan is doing a lot of work for us to follow along on the changes. Thank you for looking into this.

Laura: Thank you for offering to update the issue text for SC managers. Won't this be a burden for you?

MichaelC: I sometimes think so but it's what we signed up for.
... We all need to share the load. It is a lot of work. Looking for ways to minimize it. But we have to accept it to some extent.

Lisa: For the COGA TF this is definitely too much. We need something like Google Docs paper. Here's the current wording and put all the issues in topics with headers

<kirkwood> +! to Lisa’s comment

Lisa: Put it all together rather than huge threads. Need to better organize in one place.

AWK: We want an environment that works for everybody. Would be nice if we could reach SC without lots of discussion. How this works is a challenge.

Lisa: General process on COGA TF. With current SC, we are working on only 2 at a time. Having 1 SC manager, the person doesn't know all the issues.
... So we all focus on 2 or 3 at most. We can even have a separate call. Work together to find right solution.

<Wayne> +1

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: Deal with each issue until it is where it needs to be. More dedicated calls and shorter threads. All comments in one place.

AWK: What's the one place?

Lisa: My preference is google docs.

<kirkwood> +1 to using Google Docs

Lisa: My second preference is a wiki page.

MikeG: I think it is a good idea to focus on just a couple things at a time. Not sure how they put focus on certain ones. But I welcome that.
... I think what would help is to put a direct link to where comments are now. That basic affordance will help direct people to the right locations.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say can´t fully solve the threads everywhere issue, there are a11y issues there as well and to say I´d like to not constrain choices between e.g., google

MikeG: I disagree on Google docs. It doesn't have tracking and is not very accessible.

MichaelC: I don't think we can fully solve the issue of multiple threads. I think we can solve it. There are people who can use different tools over others.

<adam_lund> +1 to MikeG, google docs is not compatible with AT

MichaelC: I think keeping discussion in a single thread is important and helpful. And most folks can use issues. Time zones are challenging.
... We can try to manage threads but I don't think we will fully solve that issue. I'd like to not be over constraining. I don't think we should have rules where that should happen.
... Nervous about requiring one versus the other. People should use what works for them. What is our process for conducting discussions?
... Make it clear that there are separate topics. How are we working? vs. What are we doing at the moment?

Wayne: +1
... Have discussions each week on groups of topics and invite others into that discussion. These threads are not very productive.
... Laura set up a wiki page that we found quite effective.

<Rachael> +1 to focusing our conversations to a few topics a week.

Wayne: These threads change direction often. I like the idea of a phone conference approach.
... Time zones taken into account.

Lisa: Best way to do it is a survey.
... Those finding the calls difficult will not be heard at all. Survey might be good. I don't like this but it is possible.
... I think we need a full out picture of the issues before we can determine how bad is it.

AWK: Helpful feedback. Josh, Michael and I will talk. We will look into what we can do to make things better.
... We are interested to know if things are working well or not well.

<Lisa_Seeman> the aditional support with members helping each other is a nightmere

<Lisa_Seeman> and it is not nice for people to always be asking for help so they participate less

Wayne: General kindness request. If I cannot use a tool. Folks make funny comments with how things look because I cannot type in the same format. This discourages people from participating.
... May look funny but please be accepting.

AWK: I am not aware of incidences but believe this does happen. We should help each other address issues.
... zakim, take up next
... zakim, take up next item

Survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SC_20170207/results) - (start with #2, 15 min per item max)

<AWK> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_status

AWK: I want to share with I have talked to some folks about. We need to make sure that all of our SC are meeting SC requirements.
... testability, use A, AA, AAA levels, backward compatibility
... We need a "YES" in most columns in the WCAG SC 2.1 Status table columns. Some are just "Shoulds"
... Filling out this table will help us
... Let's see how the discussion goes
... #2 on the survey, Interruptions minimum

<KimD> Big +1 to tracking in table

AWK: Lisa, is this part of your 2-3?

Lisa: We want to work on Critical controls and Authentication
... Working on ones already in the draft doesn't make sense

AWK: We will fill in this table when we do have consensus on these items.
... If we go through an SC proposal and we answer Yes for Testable but No for backward compatible, we know that this is what we need to work on.
... If we are not able to reach consensus, that we will not be able to accept it to candidate recommendation. What we come to consensus on is what is going into WCAG 2.1
... As far as what we should focus on, we are not going to wait for public comments, e.g. Interruptions Minimum. We still have a lot of work to do. We haven't reached consensus by the WG yet.
... Presence in FPWD should not be used to remove focus from an SC.

Lisa: Brings me back to the topic of focus. We don't have high priority items in the draft yet, i.e. Authentication and Critical Controls. We really need focused discussions. We we address issues and are done.
... As long as comments are open we cannot reach done.

Critical Controls

#5 in survey

<AWK> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/39

AWK: We will spend 15 minutes max. Lisa can you give us an overview?

Lisa: Issues people had was that it was above the fold. This is very important. We are wondering how to do this. We are thinking of the baseline concept We define "main modality" of content.

<gowerm> Minute's up.

Lisa: The modality depends upon laptop, phone of different size, when we say "above the fold", it's according to the baseline for which you were designing.

<jon_avila> At what resolution and zoom level is below the fold?

Lisa: Sometimes you are given ... to get to more beyond the fold. Designers want to have multiple folds. If it is critical there has to be at least a link rather than ...

<gowerm> @AWK, are we not working through the comments?

Kathy: I was thinking about this. I have a question. One issue I have seen, where you have instructions and things, these are sometimes buried, Is there a way we can get away from saying "above the fold"
... I think it depends upon where the user is.
... They may have scrolled down the page but the information is still critical.

<AWK> We will but also handling comments as they come on the call

Kathy: Maybe showing content differently. Would like to move away from the term "above the fold" and see if we can come up with a different way to say this.

Lisa: I think you got the point. For example, trying to send an email and not finding the send button. Could say a mechanism is available and tie into personalisation.

<kirkwood> “without scrolling” ?

Kathy: If we did something that was in close proximity, would that address it?

Lisa: Yes and No. If someone cannot find the action button they feel that they cannot use the site.
... If you cannot see the Send button, you give up

Kahty: What if you have a long form? Mobile?

Lisa: If you have a mechanism to get to it, that's okay, e.g. Next button.
... Next button we know about and it will bring in next fold. Clear, what to do next.
... A link to critical pieces are just as good.

Kathy: I think this might be problematic.

jamesn: I want to be clear, that this would currently be written as required that any document that is more than 1 page, has to be split into multiple pages.

Lisa: more would scroll you to the next fold

jamesn: I think this is a user agent issue. If user agent handles it, we would need this SC.

<gowerm> +1 UA issue; greater clarity on scrolling affordance

DavidM: My point also. It is a partnership between disability community and the authors. I think scroll bar is an acceptable use of a web site.
... We have to expect that PwD using the web understand how to use the tools.

Wayne: Lisa, I have a question. Finding things off the page is a Low Vision problem too. What I am trying to understand, does it have to be at the top or do we just need a way that we can learn to find it?

Lisa: Yes. Just a way that you can learn to find it.

<gowerm> @ AWK. 15 minutes up? What about all the comments on the survey?

Lisa: If you have a button that says Jump to toolbar.
... This is an acceptable technique.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if there are examples of documents and forms that demonstrate how to handle the underlying issue being discussed here in a sufficient way

Lisa: So for people who cannot use scroll. They have a method to get to the next section. They know it exists.

AWK: I would love to see if there are documents or forms that demonstrate the issue here.

<gowerm> @AWK You're line is breaking up.

AWK: Examples of things done well.

<allanj> and examples of webpages that illustrate the problem

Lisa: @DavidM We can ask people if they know the tools if they are able to use them we cannot ask them to be aware of how to use tools if it is outside their capabilities. Asking people to use tools that they cannot reliably use is not the idea.

AWK: Need to identify what are improvements and creating content that enables the user agent to do the right thing for users. I think we will see this again and again.

<gowerm> I can see an argument to have an enhanced scrollbar, but that isn't an author controllable feature; it's a user agent.

<gowerm> +1 to James' comment

jamesn: Expecting content to create buttons or scroll down, we will get inconsistent results rather than having the browser do it. I agree we should have the browser do this and not the content.

Lisa: One of the successful techniques is that you label what is critical and enable it to be rendered through the browser. I agree we should be able to do this through the browser. Only when we've done that we can mark as critical
... One of the sufficient techniques is that we add "critical" to identify important stuff

<Lisa_Seeman> do people feal that the baseline aprouch for above the fold?

AWK: Because we haven't reached consensus, I think we need to do more work to get to consensus. Our resolution is to leave this one open

<gowerm> Leave it open +1

<Wayne> +1

AWK: Any objections?

<KimD> +1 to leaving open

<AWK> RESOLUTION: Leave open

<Lisa_Seeman> -1


Wayne: Of everything LVTF has put forward, this is the most important. This is needed by every single person in the Low Vision community. Everyone has tunnel vision when using the web.
... We need a sequence of single purpose windows to process content or participate in the information. We understand leaving data tables in tact but they are difficult. The entire cell needs to fit on screen.
... This is equivalent to keyboard access for blindness.

AWK: Looks like from the survey, there are 22 who agree it should go to editor's draft. 5 believe it needs more work.
... Let's pick this one up next week.

RESOLUTION: Take up Linearization next week.

<laura> +1 to Wayne

<allanj> simple solution for web, is provide a mobile view on the desktop. all menus and content are in a single column

AWK: That's it. Thanks everyone for hanging in there!

trackbot, end meeting

<Lisa_Seeman> sorry about being late. I was confuced what the time was

<AWK> \invite RRSAgent

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/03/07 21:20:36 $